Mike wrote:
... CU doesn't seem to be a 5-point tulip treader to me.

lyn wrote:
CU~ I was already bracing for your comeback;I spoke truth about your continual arguing; we are not called to bicker with one another.
In the end, only God can reveal spiritual truth. To continue to go round and round is not God-honoring, nor is it the way we should spend our time.
Go down to Lurker's post, click on Eph.2:8,9, and watch this dynamic truth-filled video.
Good day to you

Re: Lurker's link - Thanks but I will stick to my Bible!

Presumably you are against clarity of thought?

it's a good thing that the apostle Paul did not take your attitude. Doctrine would not be anywhere as clear as it is were it not for his contending for the truth.

And then we have the injunction that we too are to contend for the truth.

I guess as long as it is Paul Washer who is doing the contending and you hear what you want to hear then the world is dandy.

lyn wrote:
.... We are all in bondage to sin, until Christ frees us; we are slaves to sin. We aren't talking physical death, but spiritual. 'Dead' in that passages means - spiritually dead, destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to God, because of being given to trespasses ans sins-www.blueletterbible.org

So much for "..and remember to be kind when addressing others"!

I did not realise that there was a law against jumping threads In any case here we are talking about inability not faith! So no jump.

Now that you have qualified your previous comment about what it means to be "dead" spiritually, I have no issues with your view.

But please try and be more precise when you write, because - believe it or not, clarity of thought can actually be a real help to others.

Now just read what Michael Hranek wrote and then what you originally wrote and finally your modified comments and tell me whether your final post would not be more helpful to Michael.

lyn wrote:
It is clear the labels of calvinism vs. arminianism are where the real problem lies.
Drop the labels, and simply read what God says...Ephesians 2:1, "And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins". How do the dead bring themselves to life apart from Divine intervention? How does a lost sinner, whose heart is dead, bring him/herself to Christ?...

Why would you insist on dropping the labels and then take the typical calv interpretation of what it means to be "dead in sins and trespasses"? The way you have put it the passage should just read "dead" - why bother with "sins and tresspasses". Have you ever seen a corpse "sinning and tresspassing"?

Michael Hranek wrote:
...This seriously goes against the 5 points, doesn't it.
But it doesn't go against Rom 10:12-15

Correct me if I am wrong, but the question of the calv's understanding of "inability" was I believe the thrust of your post.

I hear you and have great sympathy with what you say. I have myself heard calvs use 1 Cor 2.14 to make the point that when the gospel is addressed to sinners then without the Spirit's work it is all Gobble-de-Gook to them! They do not understand a single word of what is being said. This is part of their inability - they hear it as a foreign language - gibberish- and therefore ridicule it.

John UK wrote:
...As to the issue before us, I can truthfully say that every day it becomes clearer and clearer. I reckon that I am being transformed by the renewing of my mind. It really is something most wonderful to be so transformed....

If with this new understanding you read other reformed writers, you will begin to notice something. When they speak of "faith being a gift" what they do not mean is that this is a new faculty- something unfamiliar to us before conversion.

And that is why when DJC49 wrote that I believed that faith is a gift without saying as much I remained silent.. because he had already explained my belief that it is not the ability that is new but the direction of the ability.

Just as our mind is darkened, but at conversion it is enlightened- the same one.

The will too- in bondage before - at conversion freed so that we freely come to the Lord.

If people said "faith is a gift" and meant no more than this, I would have no problem! BUT they don't! They mean there must be a new faculty created "ex nihilo", with no biblical support!

Frankly, they might as well believe trans-substantiation!

Kindle wrote:
"....." (C W Bogue)

A simple no would have sufficed.

John UK

Please look at Titus 3-

3For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of REGENERATION, and RENEWING of the Holy Ghost; 6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;.. "

The underlying Greek word for regeneration (Paliggenesia) means "new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration hence renovation, regeneration, the production of a new life consecrated to God, a radical change of mind for the better. The word often used to denote the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, its renovation, as a renewal or restoration of life after death

Kindle wrote:
You are not a Calvinist in doctrine!

..

Tell me .. do you believe Jonathan Edwards was a calvinist? And have you ever read his treatise on the Will?

If you have read it, which I doubt very much, what do you suppose was the basis of his distinction betwen natural inability and moral inability.

I guarantee that even the term "inability" you use in a sense which would have been rejected your calvinists forebears.

..is to lash out and cut down the perceived heretic.

5. As I wrote to Lurker the case I have been making is the same that Edwards made, and Luther made- and they would not dare accuse these dear souls of heresy- but I am fair game

6. Despite all their pious sentiments about the Lord granting light, and the need for grace etc. it becomes evident that at the end of the day, as far as they are concerned, it is all about perceived brain power, and that they is incapable of exercising that boasted grace towards others. Even Lurker was disappointing in this respect - accusing me of thinking I was the sharpest pencil in the drawer - when I am the one who has been decrying such an attitude!!

7. There is a tendency in some circles to think that the truth is all on one side. I am very far from believing that that is the case.

8. What would have happened, I wonder, if the Synod of Dort had proclaimed Arminianism to be the more biblical understanding. Would this lot still be holding to their calvinism? The opinions of councils still counts for a lot with some

9. Many who profess to hold to the WCF actually hold to the hyper position!

John UK wrote:
I tell you, bro CU, most people have to pay for entertainment like this. I've been rubbing my eyes too.
However, I've been thinking about this business ever since you raised it. I truly had never considered it before. But it sure looks like you got it right.

Tell me.....The old prophet had a sight to see surrounding them all the angels of God. You perhaps know where that is. ...

John, I am what may be termed a moderate calvinist, but I like better to be known as a particular baptist. A few things I have learned over the years:

1. You can be sure to receive the worst treatment possible from other professing calvinists - especially the cranial variety, who know little or nothing of heart religion.

2. Many calvinists are lazy thinkers and will get their theology from books rather than the Bible.

3. Many calvinists do not read widely. They only read stuff that that will reinforce what they have been spoonfed.

John UK wrote:
Eh?
...Faith is not always for salvation.
Romans 12:3 and following are not about saving faith at all, but various giftings in the church.
Do you think justification is measured out according to depth of faith?
So some get more justified than others? Ha!
..

The guy's hilarious and it just gets better and better with each post.

I had to rub my eyes, blink real hard and even got someone else to read his earlier post aloud just in case my tired brain was deceiving me - but listen to him, "..Thus it remains the SAME human faculty as before. If it was the memory or emotions then I would see no problem." - Oh? Why? Since we are said to be "new creatures", "born again", why should the memory and the emotions not need to be "born again", but only the faculty to believe?!!

And then we get the classic piece of claptrap, "..Thus YOU are with C.U. in insisting upon salvation by human faculty(works).." But of course he cannot prove that believing the Lord can ever be a work. Still his systematic theology must be right and his bible wrong

John UK wrote:
Yes, it is sad. They are almost all gone, as have Exclusive Brethren churches, and any other hypers who will not preach the simple gospel.
And if any man should ask the question, "What must I do to be saved?" it is a sure sign that he has been 'waked up, from wrath to flee' and the only sensible answer to him would be:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
Michael, thank you for your responses, but I've been so busy today to get back. I've read them all, though, so thanks.

I know it must be late for you- so thanks for the response.

The next point can wait for now - Taking the thought in the second para. of your post- what do you make of the rich young ruler?

Goodnight John.

John UK wrote:
St Mike,
You may never have entered into a hyper Frenchie church in all your life, but the scenario you presented is very sadly just how it is with the 'gospel' preaching in such establishments.
I can say this because I have personally experienced this. A strange character by the name of Mike Thomas, a Welshman, took on the pastorate of a church in Sidbury, Devonshire, England. He preached with great gusto and vehemence, working himself up into a frenzy, telling the small congregation that they could do nothing: you cannot repent! you cannot believe! you can do nothing!
But the people did DO SOMETHING. They all left, and the church closed down. I only attended the once, and it was AWFUL.

One down - how many more to go?

Michael Hranek wrote:
DJC49
And belief in the docrine of the Trinity has no bearing on salvation?
This is something I thoroughly disagree with you on BECAUSE If one is NOT RIGHT (I am not saying totally figured out but NOT RIGHT) on their belief of who God is, "The Trinity", they would have a different and therefore false god and belief in a different or false god will never and can never save anyone.

Not only so but there are very real problems when faith is made "mere" mental assent, even if it be to doctrines "..not directly pertaining to soteriology."

He says that that is all that we can do, just because he cannot think of any practical bearing! I sincerely hope the man is not a preacher!

The doctrine of the Trinity was never meant to be a dry arid doctrine to be batted around by intellectuals who love their cranial christianity. It was revealed, as you rightly pointed out, so that sinners know the God they are called to obey and worship.

In the matter of prayer and worship, we come not with just a cranial understanding of the Trinity, we behold the Trinity at work in all the works of God and our heart goes out to each member of the Trinity in praise and worship etc

Mike NY-

paperclip wrote:
Blah, Blah, B;ah....

Nothing about the faith being a human faculty here.

If you say you did believe lots of things before conversion, what is different about your previous ability to believe and your belief in the Gospel? Is the difference quantitative, qualitative etc. or do you simply maintain that you existed in a state of non-belief on any matter until God suddenly gave you the ability to believe the gospel and then you appeared on SA to declare the good news that until one is converted one does not believe anything whatsoever?

Mike NY

John UK wrote:
...And may God take all glory to himself, because he humbled himself and was made flesh, humbled himself and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. He who created all things was willing to be crucified by his creatures, that he might save unto himself a people who deserve nothing but wrath. Such love, such grace.
..G'night all, and God bless one and all.

There is a verse which I meditate on often, and find completely mind blowing. I am talking about Romans 8:32

"...He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?..."

Spared not his own Son for a worm like me? But more, now He will freely give me all things..? Amazing!

Well may the apostle John, the apostle of love, write:

1 John 3:1
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us..."

Such examples could be multiplied hundreds of times, if we take mid-directed trust in the OT. E.g. Isaiah 42:17 "They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods..." etc.

I think, although I cannot be certain, that Lurker thinks that I am saying that the unsaved can exercise saving faith without the Holy Spirit. Quite where he gets that idea is beyond me.

One of the key words used for faith in the NT is defined as follows:

Pisteuo -pist-yoo'-o -Verb

Definition
1. to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
a. of the thing believed -to credit, have confidence
b. in a moral or religious reference
1. used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
2. to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith
c. mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith
2. to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity to be intrusted with a thing

ml wrote:
I don’t believe Israel is a type of the world because she was a mixed multitude but I believe Israel is a type of the Church with true and false professors mixed together as we can also see in the Church today.
Your quote “If we do not accept that this is the case, one could not legitimately preach gospel sermons from the OT prophets to unchurched worldlings”
Why not?

Excuse the typo on my post of 2/15/09 3:35 PM, the opening line of which should have read, "Typology is a vast subject, and Israel is a type of the church etc.."

The NT concept of "church" is very different to OT nation of Israel. Israel was a mixed multitude - whereas the NT church is supposed to be comprised of the saved only.

If you are a Presbyterian, then you may equate the 2, since Presbys do not believe in regenerate church membership. As a Baptist I do not agree with them.

John UK

You asked me to wave my flag, whatever it may be. Let me give you a clue -- Our positions are almost identical!

The arid cranial hyper Calv theologians on these forums sure have an attitude problem - or do you suppose I just rub them up the wrong way?

Standing Under

Lurker wrote:
Oh dear! Now what did I write?
Now this statement takes the cake Those who perished in the wilderness had not faith... "but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (Heb 4:2) A L L who crossed Jordan were of faithful Abraham's seed.

Lurker wrote:
Sorry, but you've spent your three strikes and you're out. If you would spend a fraction of the space allotted making your point from scripture instead of posturing... trying to prove you are the sharpest pencil in the drawer, perhaps we could have come to some agreement....

If I am posturing, what are you doing exactly? Trying to prove that you are not only the sharpest but also the sharpener?

You had more than 3 to prove that faith is a new faculty - now trying to cover up your miserable failure by diverting attention away

And as for setting your mangy and rabid dog on me - I'll laugh in his teeth

John UK - so he's different?

ML

ml wrote:
I thought Egypt was a type of the world and Israel was a type of the church.

If we do not accept that this is the case, one could not legitimately preach gospel sermons from the OT prophets to unchurched worldlings. The rich evangelistic arguments would have to be reserved for those in churches who are unsaved.

The whole point about Israel is that it was a nation chosen by God to be a demonstration to the whole world that no matter how closely and kindly God deals with human beings, the innate sinfulness of mankind will always disappoint them and Him. How he loved them, tended to them, nourished them, provided for them, warned them etc. But what did he receive in return?